A recent experience drove home for me that the rotted foundation for explaining AIDS is still trying to support some pretty inexcusable medical practices at local doctors’ offices.
My partner Michael is taking a class to get his EMS (Emergency Medical Services) certificate. One of the course requirements is that he get a series of Hepatitis B vaccinations.
Because we were concerned that this or one of the other mandatory vaccinations could result in a falsely positive reaction to the Gallo antibody test result (aka HIV test) in the future, Michael made the difficult decision to have that test done before getting any vaccinations.
Michael has not tested in many years and until now has always tested negative when he did. If his status were to suddenly change after a Hep B vaccination, he wanted to have as reasonable a point of reference as is possible with these flaky and poly-reactive tests.
The medical staff at the suburban clinic he goes to actually tried to discourage Michael from HIV testing, despite knowing he is gay and has been in a long term relationship with a poz man.
The reasons the medical staff gave to not take a HIV test? First, it wasn’t included on the school’s list of required tests and vaccinations and secondly, they cautioned him that a positive result could cause him a lot of problems with his insurance and employment!
Concerns about the possibility of a cross-reaction due to the vaccinations if he was ever tested later in life were summarily dismissed.
When the clinic finally accepted the fact that Michael still wanted the test done, they first made him read and sign several papers, including a 2-page “patient consent form”, initialing 14 points.
Here are the first two points in that form, posed as questions & answers:
WHAT IS AIDS?
Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) is caused by a virus (HIV) that destroys the body’s ability to fight infection.
WHAT IS HIV?
HIV is a virus which is the cause of the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS).
There is no reason to go further down the list of points in the informed consent form because one cannot escape the circular reasoning of the answers to the first two questions that are the basis for everything that follows.
I especially like this definition of circular reasoning, from a Kansas State University English professor because his second paragraph addresses why this kind of flawed reasoning is especially unacceptable when it comes to explaining AIDS:
Circular reasoning is an attempt to support a statement by simply repeating the statement in different or stronger terms. In this fallacy, the reason given is nothing more than a restatement of the conclusion that poses as the reason for the conclusion. To say, “You should exercise because it’s good for you” is really saying, “You should exercise because you should exercise.”
It shares much with the false authority fallacy because we accept these statements based solely on the fact that someone else claims it to be so. Often, we feel we can trust another person so much that we often accept his claims without testing the logic. This is called blind trust, and it is very dangerous. We might as well just talk in circles.
None of this is new information to most of us who have been questioning the HIV/AIDS paradigm for any length of time, but I was surprised nonetheless that the AIDS orthodoxy hasn’t done a better job of covering their tracks for sloppy science from the very beginning. After all, BigPharma’s army of drug pushing sales representatives taking up valuable space in these clinics’ waiting rooms and the doctors’ schedules could be mobilized to provide some straight answers.
If there were any.